Re: Degenerative discussions (maybe he's right?)

[Ralph Hempel <rhempel@...>]

Stephen Kellett wrote:
> Asko Kauppi wrote:
> > I dare re-enter this realm, since the challenge it places on the list 
> > is - how to deal with commercial establishments, and "rules". If we 
> > fail to please Kelly's needs, maybe there's something to be looked 
> > into the mirror, too. I think such a discussion never took place 
> > earlier on the list.
>
> Tim's needs were misplaced. He wanted things that
> a) Were not available.
> b) He didn't need, if only he would educate his customers as to "why".

<snip>

> I don't think any time needs to be spent addressing his needs - he 
> didn't have any genuine needs that haven't been covered by various 
> posters on this thread.

Agreed, but that's not answering Asko's question. What I think Asko
is asking about is a more general discussion on how to handle
the 2nd tier of Lua - its libraries.

I think we all agree that the Lua core is stable and does not change
very often, and that this is a "Good Thing".

But the question of how libraries (packages, modules, whatever) will
be distributed and maintained is valid. My own experience with the
eventual bloat of Tcl and the wild differences between Forth libraries
makes me wonder about a strategy for Lua extensions.

There are a couple of interesting projects in this vein gaining
traction now, namely LuaRocks and Kepler. At some point these projects
will become defacto standards and need a more formal test/release
system.

They will probably be developed separately from the Lua core and
have a single download point for convenience. I'll bet the download
will be a "batteries included" format so that users won't have to
chase down bits from all over the Internet.

I'm not sure we need something as formal as CPAN, but maybe a good
hard look at the projects currently underway will help to get
our arms around a good solution.

Maybe we should start a new thread....

Ralph